The Oyez Project: 1976 Term

Abney v. United States (No. 75-6521)

No details yet.

Abood v. Detroit Board Of Education (No. 75-1153)

No details yet.

Alabama Power Co. v. Davis (No. 76-451)

No details yet.

Alexander v. Fioto (No. 75-1704)

No details yet.

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (No. 75-616)

The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) contracted with the Village of Arlington Heights ("Arlington") to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing. When MHDC applied for the necessary zoning permits, authorizing a switch from a single- to a multiple-family classification, Arlington's planning commission denied the request. Acting on behalf of itself and several minority members, MHDC challenged Arlington's denial as racially discriminatory. On appeal from an adverse district court decision, the Court of Appeals reversed and the Supreme Court granted Arlington certiorari.

Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety Comm'n (No. 75-746)

No details yet.

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (No. 76-316)

In regulating the Arizona Bar, the Supreme Court of Arizona restricted advertising by attorneys. Bates was a partner in a law firm which sought to provide low-cost legal services to people of moderate income who did not qualify for public legal aid. Bates and his firm would only accept routine legal matters (many of which did not involve litigation) and depended on a large number of patrons given the low financial return from each client. In assessing their concept of legal services, Bates's firm decided that it would be necessary to advertise its availability and low fees.

Batterton v. Francis (No. 75-1181)

No details yet.

Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 75-1267)

No details yet.

Beal v. Doe (No. 75-554)

In the wake of the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents turned to state and local legislators in an effort to curb the practice of abortion. This case involved a Pennsylvania law which restricted Medicaid-funded abortions only to indigent women in situations in which a doctor determined the procedure was medically necessary.

Belcher v. Stengel (No. 75-823)

No details yet.

Blackledge v. Allison (No. 75-1693)

No details yet.

Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n (No. 75-1019)

No details yet.

Bounds v. Smith (No. 75-915)

No details yet.

Brewer v. Williams (No. 74-1263)

No details yet.

Briscoe v. Bell (No. 76-60)

No details yet.

Brown v. Ohio (No. 75-6933)

No details yet.

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (No. 75-904)

No details yet.

Califano v. Goldfarb (No. 75-699)

No details yet.

Califano v. Sanders (No. 75-1443)

No details yet.

Califano v. Webster (No. 76-457)

No details yet.

Carey v. Population Services International (No. 75-443)

No details yet.

Castaneda v. Partida (No. 75-1552)

No details yet.

Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist. (No. 76-352)

No details yet.

Codd v. Velger (No. 75-812)

No details yet.

Coker v. Georgia (No. 75-5444)

In 1974, Erlich Anthony Coker, serving a number of sentences for murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault, escaped from prison. He broke into a Georgia couple's home, raped the woman and stole the family's car. The woman was released shortly thereafter, without further injuries. The Georgia courts sentenced Coker to death on the rape charge.

Commissioner v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (No. 75-1771)

No details yet.

Complete Auto Transit Inc. v. Brady (No. 76-29)

Complete Auto Transit was a Michigan corporation doing business in Mississippi. Complete shipped cars into the state where they were distributed for sale. Mississippi imposed a tax on transportation companies for the "privilege of doing business" in the state. The tax was applied equally to businesses involved in intra- and interstate commerce.

Connor v. Finch (No. 76-777)

No details yet.

Continental T. V., Inc. v. Gte Sylvania Inc. (No. 76-15)

No details yet.

Cook v. Hudson (No. 75-503)

No details yet.

Craig v. Boren (No. 75-628)

An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory.

Darden v. Florida (No. 76-5382)

No details yet.

Dayton Board Of Education v. Brinkman (No. 76-539)

No details yet.

Delaware Tribal Business Comm. v. Weeks (No. 75-1301)

No details yet.

Dixon v. Love (No. 75-1513)

No details yet.

Dobbert v. Florida (No. 76-5306)

No details yet.

Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner (No. 75-1312)

No details yet.

Dothard v. Rawlinson (No. 76-422)

No details yet.

Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc. (No. 75-1255)

No details yet.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Collins (No. 75-1870)

No details yet.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train (No. 75-978)

No details yet.

East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez (No. 75-718)

No details yet.

Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (No. 75-1264)

No details yet.

Epa v. Brown (No. 75-909)

No details yet.

Estelle v. Gamble (No. 75-929)

No details yet.

Farmer v. Carpenters (No. 75-804)

No details yet.

Fiallo v. Bell (No. 75-6297)

No details yet.

G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States (No. 75-235)

No details yet.

Gardner v. Florida (No. 74-6593)

No details yet.

Guam v. Olsen (No. 76-439)

No details yet.

Hankerson v. North Carolina (No. 75-6568)

No details yet.

Hazelwood School District v. United States (No. 76-255)

No details yet.

Henderson v. Kibbe (No. 75-1906)

No details yet.

Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Ad. Comm. (No. 76-63)

In 1972, the North Carolina Board of Agriculture adopted a regulation that required all apples shipped into the state in closed containers to display the USDA grade or nothing at all. Washington State growers(whose standards are higher than the USDA) challenged the regulation as an unreasonable burden to interstate commerce. North Carolina stated it was a valid exercise of its police powers to create "uniformity" to protect its citizenry from "fraud and deception."

Idaho Ex Rel. Andrus v. Oregon (No. 67 ORIG)

No details yet.

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (No. 76-404)

No details yet.

Ingraham v. Wright (No. 75-6527)

No details yet.

Jeffers v. United States (No. 75-1805)

No details yet.

Jones v. Hildebrant (No. 76-5416)

No details yet.

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union (No. 75-1874)

No details yet.

Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (No. 75-1053)

No details yet.

Juidice v. Vail (No. 75-1397)

No details yet.

Knebel v. Hein (No. 75-1261)

No details yet.

Kremens v. Bartley (No. 75-1064)

No details yet.

Lee v. United States (No. 76-5187)

No details yet.

Lefkowitz v. Cunningham (No. 76-260)

No details yet.

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (No. 76-357)

No details yet.

Lockport v. Citizens For Community Action (No. 75-1157)

No details yet.

Madison Sch. Dist. v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n (No. 75-946)

No details yet.

Maher v. Roe (No. 75-1440)

In the wake of Roe v. Wade, the Connecticut Welfare Department issued regulations limiting state Medicaid benefits for first-trimester abortions to those that were "medically necessary." An indigent woman ("Susan Roe") challenged the regulations and sued Edward Maher, the Commissioner of Social Services in Connecticut.

Mandel v. Bradley (No. 76-128)

No details yet.

Maness v. Wainwright (No. 75-6909)

No details yet.

Manson v. Brathwaite (No. 75-871)

No details yet.

Marks v. United States (No. 75-708)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. Westcott (No. 75-1775)

No details yet.

Mathews v. De Castro (No. 75-1197)

No details yet.

Milliken v. Bradley (No. 76-447)

No details yet.

Miree v. Dekalb County (No. 76-607)

No details yet.

Moody v. Daggett (No. 74-6632)

No details yet.

Moore v. East Cleveland (No. 75-6289)

East Cleveland's housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. Part of the ordinance was a strict definition of "family" which excluded Mrs. Inez Moore who lived with her son and two grandsons.

Morris v. Gressette (No. 75-1583)

No details yet.

Mt. Healthy City Board Of Ed. v. Doyle (No. 75-1278)

No details yet.

National Geographic v. Cal. Equalization Bd. (No. 75-1868)

No details yet.

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (No. 76-1786)

No details yet.

Nixon v. Administrator Of General Services (No. 75-1605)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Pipefitters (No. 75-777)

No details yet.

Nolde Bros., Inc. v. Bakery Workers (No. 75-1198)

No details yet.

Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo (No. 76-444)

No details yet.

Nyquist v. Mauclet (No. 76-208)

No details yet.

Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC (No. 76-99)

No details yet.

Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services v. Hodory (No. 75-1707)

No details yet.

Parker Seal Co. v. Cummins (No. 75-478)

No details yet.

Patterson v. New York (No. 75-1861)

No details yet.

Pearson v. Dodd (No. 75-1318)

No details yet.

Philadelphia v. New Jersey (No. 75-1150)

No details yet.

Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries (No. 75-353)

No details yet.

Poelker v. Doe (No. 75-442)

A St. Louis policy prohibited non-therapeutic abortions in the city's two publicly run hospitals.

Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept. (No. 76-423)

No details yet.

Roberts v. Louisiana (No. 76-5206)

No details yet.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip (No. 75-562)

No details yet.

Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green (No. 75-1753)

No details yet.

Scarborough v. United States (No. 75-1344)

No details yet.

Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board (No. 74-6438)

No details yet.

Shaffer v. Heitner (No. 75-1812)

No details yet.

Smith v. Organization Of Foster Families (No. 76-180)

No details yet.

Smith v. United States (No. 75-1439)

No details yet.

Splawn v. California (No. 76-143)

No details yet.

State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. (No. 75-567)

No details yet.

Steelworkers v. Usery (No. 75-657)

No details yet.

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. U.S. (No. 76-321)

No details yet.

Swain v. Pressley (No. 75-811)

No details yet.

Teamsters v. United States (No. 75-636)

No details yet.

Third National Bank v. Impac Limited, Inc. (No. 76-674)

No details yet.

Trainor v. Hernandez (No. 75-1407)

No details yet.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (No. 75-1126)

No details yet.

Trimble v. Gordon (No. 75-5952)

Section 12 of the Illinois Probate Act, while allowing legitimate children to inherit by intestate succession from either their mothers or fathers, allowed illegitimate children to inherit by intestate succession only from their mothers. Consequently, Deta Trimble, the illegitimate daughter of Sherman Gordon, was unable to inherit her father's estate when he died intestate. After losing her challenge to Section 12 in the Illinois Supreme Court, Trimble appealed to the Supreme Court.

Tully v. Griffin, Inc. (No. 75-831)

No details yet.

U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises (No. 75-853)

No details yet.

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans (No. 76-333)

No details yet.

United Airlines, Inc. v. Mcdonald (No. 76-545)

No details yet.

United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey (No. 75-104)

Congress provided in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that reapportionment plans of several states were to be submitted to the U.S. attorney general or the District Court of the District of Columbia for approval. Several districts in New York were restructured to create districts with a minimum nonwhite majority of 65 percent. A Hasidic Jewish community was split in two by the reapportionment. The community claimed that the plan violated their constitutional rights because the districts had been assigned solely on a racial basis.

United States Trust Co. of NY v. New Jersey (No. 75-1687)

New York and New Jersey had established a Port Authority to enhance water-bound business between the two states. In 1974, the states repealed a 1962 bond agreement which limited the Authority to administer commercial and passenger railroad subsidies.

United States v. Antelope (No. 75-661)

No details yet.

United States v. Chadwick (No. 75-1721)

No details yet.

United States v. Consumer Life Ins. Co. (No. 75-1221)

No details yet.

United States v. County Of Fresno (No. 75-1262)

No details yet.

United States v. Donovan (No. 75-212)

No details yet.

United States v. Florida (No. 54 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Larionoff (No. 76-413)

No details yet.

United States v. Lovasco (No. 75-1844)

No details yet.

United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. (No. 76-120)

No details yet.

United States v. Ramsey (No. 76-167)

No details yet.

United States v. Washington (No. 74-1106)

No details yet.

United States v. Wong (No. 74-635)

No details yet.

Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. (No. 76-156)

No details yet.

Vorchheimer v. School District Of Philadelphia (No. 76-37)

No details yet.

Wainwright v. Sykes (No. 75-1578)

No details yet.

Walsh v. Schlecht (No. 75-906)

No details yet.

Ward v. Illinois (No. 76-415)

No details yet.

Weatherford v. Bursey (No. 75-1510)

No details yet.

Whalen v. Roe (No. 75-839)

In 1972, the state legislature enacted the New York State Controlled Substances Act. The Act required doctors to fill out forms for potentially harmful prescription drugs. The prescribing doctor kept one copy, while another copy was sent to the dispensing pharmacy and a third copy was sent to the state department of health. The forms included personal information such as the patient's name, address, and age.

Wolman v. Walter (No. 76-496)

No details yet.

Wooley v. Maynard (No. 75-1453)

A New Hampshire law required all noncommercial vehicles to bear license plates containing the state motto "Live Free or Die." George Maynard, a Jehovah's Witness, found the motto to be contrary to his religious and political beliefs and cut the words "or Die" off his plate. Maynard was convicted of violating the state law and was subsequently fined and given a jail sentence.

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (No. 76-577)

Hugo Zacchini performed a "human cannonball" act, in which he was shot from a cannon into a net 200 feet away. A free-lance reporter for Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. recorded the performance in its entirety without consent and it aired on the nightly news. Subsequently, Zacchini sued Scripps-Howard, alleging the unlawful appropriation of his professional property. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Scripps-Howard. While recognizing that Zacchini had a cause of action for the infringement of his state-law right to publicity, the court found that Scripps-Howard was constitutionally privileged to include in its newscasts matters of public interest that would otherwise be protected by the right of publicity, absent an intent to injure or to appropriate for some nonprivileged purpose.